NEWSFLASH -- Chavez is not a member of the Democratic Party

[Armstead]

Love him, hate him, be indifferent about him.

Whatever.

He is not a member of the US Democratic Party. He was speaking as the elected President of a country.

Individuals are free to agree with him, criticize him or yawn.

Whatever the case, he is not running for any seat in the US Congress. He has not announced a run for the US presidency. Howard Dean has not invited him to become an advisor to the DNC.

Tell your frienbds in the media, the GOP and any Democrats who are a'scared of what he said. His personal behavior has nothing to do with the November elections in the US.

[MrCoffee]

1. I think I'm missing your point.

No, Chavez isn't running for Congress, but the people running for Congress are, and if you don't think that they will be asked about his comment, you're wrong. This is perfect for the pubs, because it means that either Dems come out in favor of Chavez' statement (which you'd better believe would be in every campaign ad from here to the sun goes nova), or they come out against it (which means that we get to eat each other).

[Armstead]

3. Democrats should say whatever they think about his remarks.

Hopefully individual candidates are politically astute enough to know what to say about it.

Whatever their opnion of him, though, it ought to be prefaced with a reminder that the persona of Hugo Chavez is yet anotehr distraction from the real issues.

(For an example of how to bat down such Rovian crap, see a replay of Jim Webb on last night's Hardball.)

[MrCoffee]

6. Seems like they might be, and they're getting crucified in here.

But i do have a question...do you agree that Chavez' comment is now an issue? I think it is, because it seems to be the only thing the MSM can talk about. Rightly or wrongly (and for the record, i think it's uberwrong), *=Devil is now an issue.

[Armstead]

9. It reflects a much bigger issue -- But his manners are just a sideshow

The trends and views that Chavez represents are a direct response to the results of historical US foreign policy and more recent policies of Corporate Globalization....And now Bush interventionism.

Before Chavez, Venezuala was a very rich country -- but one that was also very polarized economcally, and was run by a defacto oligarchy. Ca=havez didn;t get into office because of his good looks. He got into office because his anger resonated with many Venezualans who had been left out.

And that's just a microcosm of bigger problems and core issues that ought to be dealt with in the political debate.

But whether Chavez's lack of courtesy in his speech reflects on the United States Democratic Party is laughable, and should be batted down and ridiculed as an issue by all Democrats whenever it is raised.

[BurtWorm]

17. I definitely agree that he's yet another distraction.

:applause:

[Virginia Dare]

2. Thank you...

the Repukes are trying hard to equate the Democratic leaders in this country with extreme leftists.

I think by compelling themselves to answer to this, they are just acknowledging that they are somehow responsible for what Chavez says.

Maybe it's a damned if you do, damned if you don't proposition, but I think they're protesting too much. :shrug:

[Lone_Star_Dem]

4. And he wasn't a guest of the US either

He was a guest of the UN.

His being here and what he said doesn't have jack to do with any American politicians, unless they want it to, that is.

[EarthNeedsHope]

5. I would prefer to not have a nationality

Chavez speaks for me even if I am not Venezuelan.

[Zodiak]

10. That is the rub of it

We ALL think Bush is a devil...that is not an opinion of the "far left" (whatever that is). There is truth to that, but the media can amplify that personal opinion into "lefties hate America" in a heartbeat, so the Democrats shrink from it. Bush does not equal America....even the Presidency does not equal America, but there are a lot of people out there who do make those equations and the media likes to push their buttons to mobilize them against us.

It is smart for Democrats to run away from Chavez's remarks. I am not going to change my vote because of it, and I suspect nobody else here will, either.

But c'mon....we all agree that Bush is some form of devil, as does 60% of this country. "Devil" is a creative way of describing someone who starts unjust wars, tortures people, kills through neglect, and tramples civil and human rights.

Chavez spoke for a lot of us, and we are slyly looking the other way and whistling.

Nothing to wring our hands over.

[shain from kane]

7. The United Nations building just happens to be located in New

York City. It is an international compound. To claim that Chavez came to the United States to criticize the U. S. President while on our soil is not a very good argument to pursue.

[Tierra_y_Libertad]

8. Too bad. We could use a few outspoken Dems like Hugo.

[malaise]

15. Sadly they did not say what Hugo did

long ago but they cannot give MSM and Rethugs the offensive here.

[fooj]

11. Love him, hate him...

just like you said. However, nobody with any reasoning capabilities can dispute the many truths that he spoke. The same goes for Iran's President. Much of what both men said WAS TRUE. The truth stings, eh? OUCH!!!!

[Zavulon]

12. I fear Pandora's Box was just opened.

A lot of what the Repug gasbags are saying right now is very similar to what is on the Boortz blog today...

"Sounding like he was reading a script prepared by the Democrat Party and Moveon.org, Chavez ranted on and on about how the United States was an imperialist nation that didn't really want peace..."

The first post in response to yours is the correct answer. Chavez, in the meantime, was absolutely right - but he didn't do us any favors. This is a problem for us. Charlie Rangel knows it. Nancy Pelosi knows it.

A lot of the Repug gasbags are calling for a Citgo boycott. Keeping an eye on Citgo's sales, if anyone knows how to do it, could be a good way to see how serious this is.

[Armstead]

16. The impact of globalization is the real issue

It really doesn't matter if Chavez gave his speech in the nude.

If the GOP persists on this the Democrats ought to say: "Forget Chavez. YOU want to talk about the results of CONsdervative foreign and economic policies? You want to talk about how they affect average Amnereicans and our economy? You want to talk about why we have alienated so many nations? Bring it on."

[Zavulon]

18. I say that stuff every day, and

I'm not that good at getting people to change their minds by saying the same stuff every day - so merely repeating it by starting out with "Forget Chavez" isn't going to work. I already heard an answer to something similar to your approach this morning, and it sounded like this: "If we're pissing off Chavez, we're doing something right, and he really does sound like Dems." I'm new at the political junkie thing, so how is a marginally-skilled debater like me going to overcome that level of ignorance? If you can do it, great, but I'll need a little more instruction.

The bottom line is that now we (some of us, anyway) have to jump through flaming hoops that weren't on fire the day before yesterday. Say what you want about the Repug gasbags, but they do have audiences, they're great at spin and lies, and their audience is more than gullible enough to believe and pass on what they preach. I can agree with you until the cows come home (and I do), but "Forget Chavez" + arguments we use every day is nore more effective than the everyday arguments were before Chavez gave the Repugs something to rally around.

[Armstead]

21. The issue hs been ignored for too long -- Probably too late for 06

We should have had this frickin national debate 10 or 15 years ago, before the US was mindlessly put on the train to Corporate Globalization.

So the horse is already out of the barn for Democrats to do much in 06. BUT, at least they ought to start talking about it if the GOP is going to try and use it against them.

But they can, at least, uze the counter argument of Chavez and Ahmeetc. as a symptom of how Bush is isolating the United States. "Why has the Bush administration stirred so much anti-American enmity around the world?"

As for tal,king to people about globalization. It's difficult. I've been among those trying to talk about it since the mid 1990's and earlier.

But I do think as the chickens come hoem to roost, people are becoming more recptive to listening if they can be helped to connect the dots between Corporate Globalization their own struggles and what they see happening to the country.

The biggest obstacle, IMO, is fatalism. A ,ot of peope don't like what's been happening, but they don't see anyone in power that is going to bat for them. That's where the democrats should be picking up the ball.

[malaise]

13. and Dems are making sure

that the Rethugs can't confuse the two. I think Bush is fugging evil but in this instance the Dems had no choice but to distance themselves. There is an election in a few weeks. MSM was already trying to spin this in their favour and they brought on Buchanan to lead the charge.

[Balbus]

14. Good - that means I don't have to support that piece of shit

and not be violating any rules on DU. I guess if he became a Democrat and ran against Lieberman for a CT senate seat, I'd have to change my tune. But until then - Fuck Chavez!!

[deaniac21]

19. I've loved him ever since he organized the grape boycott!

[Armstead]

20. That Chavezx was moredignified